Raghuvir vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Raghuvir with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2006, under Sections 302, 149, 148, 147 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the Constable Digvijay Singh on 17.4.2006 at 6.15 p.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 17.4.2006 at 5.30 p.m. The distance of the Police Station was about 1 kl. mt. from the alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged that the accused Bablu alias Dhirendra involved in Case Crime No. 73 of 2006 u/s 60 of the Excise Act and the deceased Raj Kumar involved in Case Crimes No. 74 of 2006 and 75 of 2006 were arrested and they were taken by the first informant and constable 97 Rajveer Singh and H.G. Hari Singh for getting the remand in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Kasganj but the Court was closed. Thereafter accused persons were brought to Etah by Roadways Bus and they proceeded by sitting in two Rickshaws to the Court of Etah for producing the accused in the Court, the mother and other family members were also in their company. When they reached near the State Bank, the co-accused Sunil Yadav, co-accused Prempal, co-accused Balbir Singh, the applicant Raghuvir Singh and two unknown miscreants, who were following the rickshaw by motor-cycle, came forward and stopped the rickshaw of deceased Raj Kumar and discharged the shots at him by their rifle and country-made pistols. Consequently after sustaining the injuries, the deceased Raj Kumar died on the spot at about 5.30 p.m. The deceased Raj Kumar was having enmity due to litigation with the accused persons and leaving the dead body of the deceased Raj Kumar and taking the co-accused Bablu alias Dhirendra, the first informant went to the Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased received six ante-mortem injuries in which three injuries are of fire arm wound of entries and three injuries are exit wounds. Injury No. 1 was fire arm wound of entry on the chest, it was having no blackening, tattooing or charring, injury No. 3 was fire arm wound of entry on left axilla, it was having no blackening, tattooing or charring, injury No. 5 was fire arm wound of entry mandible, it was having blackening around the wound. All the fire arm injuries were of different dimensions.

Heard Sri D. N. Wali, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant:

(i) That an unusual story has been given by the prosecution by showing that the first of all deceased Raj Kumar and the Babu alias Dhirendra were going to get their remand from the civil court, Etah but the Court was closed. Thereafter, they were brought to Etah by Roadways Bus and from the Roadways Bus they were taken to the civil court, Etah on the rickshaws and firing was done by the applicant and other co-accused but only deceased had received injuries and no other person received any injury. This is highly improbable that if in one rickshaw three persons are sitting and in indiscriminate firing only one person has sustained injuries. The alleged occurrence has taken place in some other manner or the deceased was murdered by the Police itself but to save the skin from the criminal liability, the present story has been concocted ;

(ii) That the statements of the witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer which are delayed statements, no reliance can be placed on such delayed statements ;

(iii) That the F.I.R. of this case is ante-timed. According to the wireless message dated 17.4.2006, no one was named as accused ;

(iv) That an application has been moved by the applicant in the Court of learned C.J.M., Etah on 27.4.2006, that he may be put up for identification by the Police witnesses and the witnesses of the locality but the same has been rejected. The deceased Raj Kumar was a criminal, he was having multi-cornered enmity ;

(v) That in Case Crime No. 940 of 2002, u/s 302/34, I.P.C., Rahul and Anoop were named as accused by Rajveer Singh. In that case the name of the deceased also came into light, during investigation the name of accused Rahul and Anoop''s father constable Vijay Singh and Shyam Singh, who were posted in district Etah, were pressurising the family of the deceased '' (vi) That there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story and the applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, he is in jail since 21.4.2006, therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contentions, it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that it is very serious offence in which the deceased was arrested by the police and he was taken to the Court for getting the remand but he has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused, the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged without any delay and the role of firing is assigned to the applicant also and deceased had received gun shot wound of entries and the alleged occurrence has been witnessed by so many persons. The applicant has been named in the F.I.R., he was taken by the first informant for getting the remand, therefore his identification was not disputed. The application of the applicant seeking his identification has been rightly rejected by the learned C.J.M., Etah and the alleged occurrence has taken place in a broad day light inside the city, it is grave in nature. In case the deceased had been murdered in the police custody and the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant and other co-accused persons and they have committed the murder of the deceased in police custody in broad day light in the heart of the city and the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the role of firing is assigned to the applicant also and the deceased had received injuries, the incident had been witnessed by so many persons and considering the submissions made by both the sides and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.